User talk:Zleitzen/Archive 2

Hi Zleitzen I was just wondering how I nominate this rubbish article for deletion. How to I put a delete tag on it and bring up a Votes for Deletion page for it? Rusty2005 16:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you found out how, Rusty. Good spot! --Zleitzen 17:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thebainer, I saw your comments about mediation on Adam's rfc page. It would be a great boost if you could persuade Adam to constructively comment on the content and drop his "robust" tactics". No one’s asking Adam to concede his beliefs, it’s just that we feel he should be more inclusive, respect others and share editorial control. A cup of tea would suit me fine!  ;) --Zleitzen 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply, I've been rather busy lately. What I meant on that page was that I'd be happy to mediate the content at Cuba, I find that it's usually easier to try to fix the content rather than trying to fix behaviour. It tends to work fairly well by taking away the basis for arguments. --bainer (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE AdamCarr - Well, we will have to see where it goes from here. I won't take any premature actions at this point unless it is absolutely necessary. --Jay(Reply) 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no premature action be taken, but it's coming to something when Adam's incivility is making the newspapers![1]

I find Bruce and MichaelW to be far more incivil. Zleitzen, I'm hoping to put together my thoughts on the Cuba/US relations article soon. Glad to know that you are willing to contribute as well. I'm looking forward to it. --Mcmachete 19:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could cover a lot of the things we haven't got room for on the main page, which should strictly describe basic stuff like Cuban geography and brief history etc.--Zleitzen 19:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing the page on the Architect (from the Matrix). I've been going through parts of the 2nd and 3rd movies for a few hours now verifying what people did or didn't say. ugh.

Time to eat. Anyway, I wondered what you thought of the edits. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect_%28The_Matrix%29 )

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 22:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Antelope. Funnily enough, although I've spent years involved in media and film theory I know virtually nothing about the Matrix. I'm more of a Battle of Algiers person myself (if you've ever seen that film you'll know I'm no fun at all when it comes to movies). The edits seem fine to me, I bet it's great editing a non controversial topic for a change. I should give it a go! The dispute I'm involved in is making the newspapers [2], I guess I should count myself lucky I don't get a mention!! --Zleitzen 02:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-shrugs- Oh I don't know, a good "historical film" can be good.  :)

As for non-controversial, well.... the Wachiowski Brothers went out of their way NOT to explain what *they* meant, thematically, in the trilogy because they didn't want to invalidate what others would take from the movies. They have said they were interested in getting people to question things, not decide one way or another. So I was trying to stick to what objectively happened in the movies, without interpreting the "why" of it. That's where I expect opposition; someone who has a pet theory about what something meant and saw what he wanted to see and needs the article to reflect that.

-sigh- It's an epidemic, and I'm not immune, though I do try to check myself whenever possible. I guess I was hoping you had seen them and maybe analyzed them and had a grip on some of the nuances. Alas......  ;)

I stopped by that article that is making the newspapers. Didn't really see what I could do there. The debate was a bit of a mess, but it appeared at the time that it was winding down a bit. I guess I might be wrong if it made the newspapers?

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC))\[reply]

Re. Cuba - Funny; my full time job as well, though I don't normally brag about it, nor do I assume I am without bias. No personal slag intended there - but I get very concerned when anyone assumes they are themselves unbiased.Bridesmill 22:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, Bridesmill, I would have the same concerns myself if I read that from an editor. Nobody is totally unbiased, it's human nature. But everyone should aim for that here and recognise the filters and layers involved. The proof is in the pudding as they say!--Zleitzen 22:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on apologizing but then I came to this page and realized everything I wrote here had been deleted. Darn dude, lets make sure that we never cross paths again, you have really managed to rub me the wrong way. Whereas I respect your investigating ability, your selective choice of what belongs on your talk page and your other pet pages I find repugnant. Travb 07:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if me organising my talk page rubs you up the wrong way, and you find it "repugnant". I've no idea why you're so worked up about this, and I assure you that you have got you're wires crossed as to why I have done this.--Zleitzen 12:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Human Rights section that Adam wrote was not all bad. Though, it was to POV too. I attempted to rewrite it to get it NPOV, but ran out of patience. Instead, I just fell back to the last NPOV version of the section in the history, my intention was to do something quick to allow the last POV dispute box to be removed. That said, I would support 'harvesting' the good parts of Adam's rewrite, (just leave out the POV slant). As a baseline, sticking with the main point outline of an neutral international organization, like perhaps Human Rights Watch, or similar. By that measure, the Gay rights issue, does not make the cut and should be put in the Human rights in Cuba instead. BruceHallman 20:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communist State is a term widely used to describe a nation ruled by the Communist party. I understand that no country like that ever refers to itself as "Communist" since that remains unattained. However, "Communist State" is most accurate and significant, this is the term most often used in the West. We can add that Cuba considers itself a socialist state if neccessary. CJK 22:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am wondering if you could cast vote in the POV dispute survey of Human rights in the People's Republic of China. Thanks. Coconut99 99 22:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Maester mensch what happened. He stated clearly in his comments how he tried to undo the damage done by the person who removed all the material. And he tried to explain to the person why it was so damaging. I saw what Maester mensch wrote to him, and as far as I know, that person has not responded.

That person (whose name I can't spell and if I go find it, I'll lose this page) is trying to move two sections in Fidel Castro to the Cuba page (according to his comments on Cuba talk). I've been trying to figure it out myself. Maester mensch accidently discovered what happened when I asked him for help with a link this afternoon and he couldn't find the link because the section the link was in had suddenly disappeared. When I learned that from mensch I looked at Fidel Castro and the comments on the watchlist. Then I saw what had been done to Fidel Castro. In a short period of time half the material had been removed.

I'm not interested in participating in Fidel Castro anymore, given what has happened today. No one has consulted with me about any of this except mensch who has been very helpful. He knew I had written most of what has been removed.

If you can, explain it to me. I'm new at Wikipedia but I've never had an experience like this before on other Wikipedia copy edits. Always before people have been very kind. KarenAnn 04:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, KarenAnn. I had a look at the page and it looks like you've done some really good work on the Castro page so far. Don't let Teemu's comments discourage you, although other users are bound to tweak little things etc - I changed a couple of links etc. I didn't understand Teemu's comments about moving stuff around myself. I'm also not sure if he's up to speed with subject matter. Would you mind if we reinstated your work soon so users can carry on improving the page? And you're more than welcome to carry on if you're willing to stick at it, it's good to see an editor who is dedicated to sources and citations.--Zleitzen 05:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I am not into the politics of all this. Most of what I wrote is gone completely now and apparently not able to be retrieved. I've put too much work into Fidel Castro to do it all over again. I don't mind people making changes (tweaking and such); it's the whole sale slaughter that demoralizes me. I'll move on to something new where I can get intellectually interested again. Today burned out on Fidel Castro, at least as far as this project is concerned.

I am a professional writer/copy editor/researcher and I guess (unreasonably) I expect people to act professionally (or at least civilly). I don't like this way of working. Teemu accused me of being biased but his examples lead me to believe he doesn't understand the English language very well. (The English language is my profession.) He also doesn't seem to grasp the essence of Castro, which doesn't have to do with political arguments over words. It is the man and how he gets things done that is so fascinating. I don't enjoy working in this kind of atmosphere whereas I do enjoy the intellectual challenge of writing clearly and factually. I think I'll move on to greener pastures at Wikipedia where I can take pleasure in what I do and let you guys fight it out. But thank you for your kind words, and I did enjoy the last few weeks before all this came down. KarenAnn 06:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I know, I was appalled when I read the Cuba page. ("I was accused of bias for writing 'Cuba is prone to devastating hurricanes'"!} Too bad it's devolved into such ideological fluff, because historically Cuba is fascinating in so many ways. And, ironically, my personal belief is that Castro's strength is that he is not an ideologue but rather a pragmatist, a skillful, charming pragmatist, doing what he believes is necessary for survival. I was trying to show that in the article -- that he deals with things, he gets stuff done, he skillfully modifies his tactics to fit a changing world. He runs a country of 11 million people, a drop in the bucket, and he practically has rock star status. And it is through pure force of personality, intellect, and uncanny intuition that he is so effective. I think I'll work on Frank Pais for a while -- no one cares about him enough to harass me. I'll give your Ubre Blanca article a look. That's the secret -- choose an obscure or erudite subject and you'll be left alone to explore it as a facet of the universe! KarenAnn 06:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am ashamed that I was so naive as to put all the work I did into that page and can't even look at Fidel Castro anymore. I wish you would take my stuff out of it. I know that's not correct Wikipedia thinking and that I can't be proprietary, but what is the point if hard work is not respected and can be wholesale trashed (we are not talking "tweaks" here) with no one saying one word to me.

No one mentioned to me that they did not like what I was doing or gave me any suggestions or guidance of any kind regarding the page, although I asked for some. I would have accepted, in fact welcomed, feedback of any sort. And yet is is obvious that there was much silent criticism. Having no power, I can only plead with you to remove my work so bad memories will not abound and my faith will be restored that there is some sort of respect here for people who are trying to do the right thing. KarenAnn 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry KarenAnn, I asked other editors what they thought and they seemed to agree that your work had improved the page significantly. I felt it was important for the direction of the page to restore your material, there was too much good research in there to be lost. Apologies if that was not your wish. Unfortunately one of the down sides of this type of group editing is that certain users feel it neccessary to "trash" other users work - it's a failing on their part rather than the original editors. I've been editing on Cuban matters for a couple of months and am very familiar with the subject matter, but I didn't see any reason why anyone would criticise your work. Please reconsider your request, at least for the sake of the page itself.--Zleitzen 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say the other editors "seemed to agree", whatever that means. The page itself is a misuse. That's why I don't want to be a part of it. I looked at it just now and it is awful. The motivations there are not good. I'm not reconsidering my request. But what does it matter? You guys have all the power and my work will be used for your own purposes. KarenAnn 00:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out once again. --Jay(Reply) 01:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z: as far as I can tell, Castro has appropriated work on dairy cattle from researchers out of Cuba, even the "miniature" cattle are far from being a novel concept. What is novel about Castro's ordered research, is that it almost always tends to fail because of micromanagement. Will look into it further when I get a chance. El Jigue 5-24-06

Z: The trouble with NPOV one cannot readily apply it to a dictatorshipe where all official documentation, and all documentation within the reach of the dictator is co-opted. El Jigue 5-24-06

"Hi Maester mensch, you should be congratulated for your excellant work on the Fidel Castro page under difficult and often trying circumstances! Well done.--Zleitzen 18:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks for your support! Certainly appreciated. :-) mensch • t 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z: I know very little about them, after reading [3] I would not put much trust in them. It seems that it is group seeking power in Cuba after Castro is gone, the denunciation of Cuban exiles could be interpreted as proforma protection against too much Cuban government interference. However, if real it seems intended to seek power without much democratic restraint or input. I would not trust them... for not only are they almost certainly infiltrated by Castro's agents but they already appear to have a program to rule... Still I will withhold judgement until I know more. Strange and sad how often when slaves are liberated they copy the actions of their previous masters. El Jigue 5-31-06

Thank you very much for your nice words about my work on this piece, you're very kind! Angmering 18:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fidel Castro has a long talk page so I am not sure to what part you are referring. However, most English-speaking academics when dealing with governments refer to a "communist state", i.e. a state in which a Communist Party has fully enshrined legal control. I believe that is most appropriate here as well, despite self-descriptions (example: Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Has there been any attempt to vote on this? Thank you. Contrarrevolucionario 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your points, but it was established on the Cuba page - see this from the talk page [4]. --Zleitzen 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, yes, but where can we give a reference to the obvious fact that Cuba is referred to as a communist state and that it is important in the history of communism? This is not denied by anyone that I know of. Thanks. Contrarrevolucionario 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to have the "socialist republic" term in that introduction paragraph but elswhere you have free range as far as I'm concerned. I generally don't like to get involved in his article - it's just for across-the-board consistency with Cuban articles I request that we keep to the formal terms in certain areas. One of the unique problems with that article is because of Castro's longevity, we end up with a lot of duplicated material appearing in other Cuban articles. So there needs to be a degree of consistency. Anyway, all I ask is that we keep the "Socialist republic" in that first paragraph. Good luck!--Zleitzen 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you have edited Elections in Cuba I thought you may want to weigh in at Talk:Psephos where some people dispute as "original research" my contention that the Psephos website is "not entirely neutral" when it says flat-out that "Cuba has no elections". Margana 03:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I find the Psephos article interesting, I feel it would be better for the poor bloke if I stayed away from his pet project and accompanying article. Though it may interest academics at the University of Essex, an institution perhaps unwisely mentioned, as it is one of the world's foremost centres for the study of the Cuban democratic and electoral process! Good luck! --Zleitzen 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's a huge task: it needs a lot of work, but I'm hesitant to move too fast, since everyone is behaving so Wiki-nicely, and consensus is essential. Sandy 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I agree that Sandy was cutting down extraneous material, looking for consensus, and improving the article. (I wish Sandy would extend this same civility to me. I was new to the discussion, and by coincidence I happened to support a major revision by another editor the morning after my first edit to the page. I was not the one to make this major edit without discussing it with Sandy, so I don't know why Sandy is so caught up on berating me.) Since the article had deteriorated so dramatically after it had been featured on the main page in December and before Sandy began his/her work, it made more sense to roll back the edits made in 2006, as opposed to following Sandy's strategy. Wgee came to that decision earlier today, writing in his edit summary: Restored the last 10 December 2005 version, as that was the day it appeared on the main page. This version offers a much better platform for improvement. The current version is just a mess. [5] Sandy should not take offense to my decision to support Wgee's edit. Perhaps Wgee should've discussed it earlier; perhaps I should've discussed my support of Wgee's edit before beginning to edit the December 10 version. Still, the decision was right, and the article was dramatically improved as a result. Second, regarding my initial edit concerning the 2002 coup, I was aware of SandyGeorgia's points, but unimpressed. All major news media outlets refer to the events as a coup. To disregard their naming conventions, I believe, brings us into the original research realm. Third, you accuse me of "demanding blocks on editors without due cause"; I strongly reject this charge. You've weighed into several instances when I've requested indefinite blocks on three users: Sgrayban (talk · contribs), Cognition (talk · contribs), and Comandante (talk · contribs). In each of those cases, blocks were well-deserved; and Wikipedia is much better off with Sgrayban and Cognition gone for good. Forth, as for my comment about "young" contributors who idolize Castro, Guevara, and Chavez, I was not referring to you. Finally, please don't respond to this post on my talk page. If you object to my edits, I'll be happy to discuss them on the Chavez talk page, as you are, despite my editorial disagreements with you in the past, a legitimate editor with expert knowledge on Latin America. Otherwise, I wish to get back to content editing, rather than engaging in interpersonal disputes. 172 | Talk 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Chavez issue I said pretty much said the same thing to Sandy myself. But it's a collaborative process, productive contributors like Sandy should not feel like they want to abandon the site because they haven't been treated well, there's too many cranks and vandals around as it is. Although I'll give you the benefit of having had a far longer tenure, I appreciate that frustration can set in and actions can appear more curt than perhaps intended. By the way, I was calling for ScottGrayban to be blocked even before you were for his abuse to you early in the Cuba dispute [6] which I didn't like at all, and was pointing to this when the talk of an unblock came up. Cognition and Commandante I know nothing about.--Zleitzen 06:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My long tenure on this site notwithstanding, and all of Sandy's comments saying that I 'bite the newcomers,' I'm actually the newcomer on the Chavez article. I still don't know why this user is so upset. Is it because I archived the talk page? If so, I'll restore it. I just started my work. I wish he/she would cut me some slack. Regarding the blocks, if ScottGrayban, Cognition, and Comandante were not the ones to which you were referring, I'm not sure what you meant earlier, unless you meant my support of the two recent blocks by PMA. 172 | Talk 06:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been wiser to pass those dubious blocks to other administrators and/or help PMA to calm down, is what I'm referring to here. Anyway, you're the newcomer on the Chavez page - within 24 hours you have supported a reversion removing weeks of painstaking rebuilding work, accused an editor of making tendentious edits, archived the talk page, told a user where they can and can't make comments etc. And you wonder why you are engaging in interpersonal disputes rather than content editing? If you could just raise the standard of your bedside manner to the standard of your editing skills then you wouldn't be defending yourself here. Be nice.--Zleitzen 06:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PMA's blocks were correct. Let's drop the issue, though, because I am not interested in debating it. Yes, I have supported a total revision of the article and challenged another editor on the word choice regarding the events of April 2002. The job was done efficiently, and now the article is better as a result. And if I could stand to be nicer, so could you and Sandy. 172 | Talk 16:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page Since you aren't going to apologize, 172, I encourage you to move along, put this incident behind you, and get busy fixing the article. Cheers, Sandy 12:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has been indef-banned though has attempted several times to get unblocked, the results of which remain unclear at present. I have been open about my intentions when asked. Thanks. 72.65.80.34 13:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have a dynamic IP, so I do not control what my IP address is; it is misleading to say that I am "utilising a multitude of IP addresses", giving an intended impression that they are fast and loose.
2. The ban of PatCheng is currently being disputed and the outcome is unclear, as I already explained to you.
3. Anonymous editing is not forbidden.
4. I am not violating policy.
5. Though Connolley was well-intentioned, the block was lifted because it was a pedantic charge leveled by ROX in order to escalate an edit war and bring it to talk pages.
6. I did not edit while the block was in effect, and in fact left Wikipedia entirely for a period of time.

If you have a dispute with my behavior, kindly bring it to me, rather than skulk around in private. 151.205.36.69 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake about the block and the dynamic IP - my apologies as I know nothing about computers. I just have a problem with the various addresses on all the Cuba pages, and the confusion this causes - I would frankly prefer it if you consistently stick to one address as you're actively involved in large disputes. If PatCheng resurfaces for any reason be sure to alert me immediately and I'll assist in any way I can.--Zleitzen 03:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the earnest apology - this seems to be rarer and rarer in Wikipedia, where most would rather adopt a reflexively defensive position over even the most egregious of behavior than come clean.

As I said, I have a dynamic IP, which means that the address changes every time I log off and back on, which usually occurs around once a day. However, I have been careful not to unduly cross or misrepresent identity paths and have not mislead anyone about my intentions, much less violate policy (e.g. any double votes and so forth). I don't believe individual addresses have confused anyone as to the identity of a party in the dispute, and believe me if you comment to anyone involved I will likely see it. The most frustrating thing about the PatCheng ordeal is articles, several of them at once, get caught in the crossfire of summary reverts leading people to assume malign intentions on my part, which I believe caused you to object on one such page, where I explained some edits. I am always open to discussion on edits (when I have the time), but that is not PC's intention, and he is disruptive. In fact, I attempt earnest compromises on the most tendentious of issues, but this does not necessitate that I abandon ground if I feel that accuracy, quality, or neutrality is sacrificed, hence reverts. I would be much obliged if you did monitor potential stalking issues you happen to come across in such articles, and I hope any existing content disputes can be settled civilly and with respect, as is my intention. Thank you. 151.205.36.69 03:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zleitzen, I just want to point out that User:72.65.68.229, User:151.205.36.69, User:141.153.90.177, and various other IP addresses appears to be the IP addresses of User:TJive and User:YINever (he admitted to being the same person). They both have the same editing patterns and a WHOIS shows they are from Reston, VA. Here he admitted it. [7] --RevolverOcelotX 01:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, RevolverOcelotX taking up PatCheng's harassment, surely out of his sense of justice. See now what I mean? 141.153.90.177 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at User:141.153.90.177 contributions and editing patterns, I suspect 141.153.90.177 (talk · contribs) is another sockpuppet of User:TJive, User:YINever, User:72.65.68.229, User:151.205.36.69, and various other constantly changing IP addresses. Perhaps another check user might be in order. --RevolverOcelotX 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for speaking on your page, Zleitzen, he follows me everywhere. 141.153.90.177 03:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if 141.153.90.177 consistently stick to one IP address or username. He is actively involved in many large disputes with constantly changing IP addresses which causes much confusion. Editing with constantly changing anonymous IP addresses makes him look sneaky and many see it as a sign of work by trolls or vandals. --RevolverOcelotX 04:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Guided" would be okay if we were taliking about what he claims, but we can't just flat out state "guided" just because the Cuban Constitution, with all of it's contradictions, says so. CJK 00:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're trying to say and there is some value in it, but "Ruled" is incorrect though. Cuba is not governed or ruled by the Communist party nor Castro - it is governed by the Cuban constitution and Cuban law. Which states that the party is the "vanguard" and "guiding force" of Cuban society. Besides, being a member of the Communist party is not a pre-requisite for sitting in government. Castro himself has often subjegated the party and does not always see eye to eye, despite being president of that party also. Really, it's too complicated to say in one sentence and may be best left out entirely. --Zleitzen 00:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I put it there is that we needed to note, in the intro somewhere, Fidel's Communist affiliation. If you read the intro without it, you'd be under the impression he was some sort of democratic leader. CJK 00:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zleitzen,you are being so reasonable, I'm almost starting to forgive you. KarenAnn 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you f*cking kidding me?

Controlled is maybe more accurate, but it's still untrue. There are multiple conflicting bodies in the Cuban judiciary - and mass organisations that are unaffiliated with the Communist party that play a major part in Cuban governance.

Hey, KarenAnn - I am reasonable!--Zleitzen 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you name some of these organizations and their functions? CJK 19:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The National Assembly is made up of all kinds of characters including popular culture figures and "local heroes" - the Municipal Assembly is made up of housewives, farm workers, intellectuals, unaffiliated to the PCC. The main Trade Union CTC, which predates the revolution by 20 years is not officially affiliated to the PCC. The FAR - which has been the most influencial wing of the Cuban government since the revolution was a nationalist military organisation not directly affiliated with the modern PCC, which came into existence much later. etc etc... --Zleitzen 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to tell me that the National Assembly is not controlled by the Cuban Communists and that the court system is not controlled by the national assembly? Because if you are, we have nothing further to discuss. CJK 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHOIS says Amsterdam. I can't even recall any Dutch Wikipedians offhand. It seems he's objecting to KA's comments; on that, I don't know anything. --TJive 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have such communist views? Why must you be so impossible? Why dont you just go to China, join the PLA, and "liberate" Taiwan?El benderson 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I have never shared a "communist" view in my life and I don't know what you're talking about. For your information I'm an editor who has studied and taught Politics and Media - with an interest in Caribbean and Latin American subjects. Please do not leave such messages on my talk page. Especially as I have never encountered you on any page I have edited.--Zleitzen 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been watching your edits from your sock puppet.El benderson 02:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a sock puppet? Just curious as I don't quite understand to sock puppet thing -- although I wish I had an alias on the Fidel Castro page. So if sock puppetry would provide me with one, I'd be interested. KarenAnn 12:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got a clue what the above user El Benderson is talking about, KarenAnn. He's either lying or he's got me confused with someone else. Anyway, apparently he's some sort of roving troublemaker, and is now indefinitely banned. --Zleitzen 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on my Watchlist that you answered my question, but I can't find the answer on your Talk page or mine. Where is it? KarenAnn 13:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! You didn't answer it. I was just mixed up. KarenAnn 13:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was only blocked because they thought I was some jerk, and by the way, don't get a sock, unless you really need one. Like, if you were indefinitely banned. And I'm just following orders and spreading the word man.Defy You 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the unprovoked comments my IP gave on this page, I don't have control of this computer all the time. 82.165.184.60 01:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the slight grammar work on Chavez: I'm not a great copyeditor or writer to begin with, and I have my hands full keeping up with correcting the ref errors, spelling, grammar and punctuation of other editors, which makes it hard to sit down and work on the big picture (an article that is still much too long, and still outdated). Maybe you can add some additional help to the lead. Saravask's original version left out the small fact that Chavez led the coup, using the passive voice which minimized Chavez's involvement: A career military officer, Chávez founded the leftist Fifth Republic Movement after a failed 1992 coup d'état. Reading that sentence, it isn't clear that he was even involved with the coup attempt. When I dug back into the history of the article, I found that someone had objected to the word "led" at some point, so Saravask had deleted it. I can't understand a basis for objecting to the word "led", I never found the exact objection, but I was hesitant to re-introduce that word. It appears that Saravask just avoided some controversy by making the reference to the coup intentionally vague. So, I chose the word "architected". Chavez led the coup, but given that there was some past objection to the word "led" (which I can't understand), maybe you can review the passage, and let me know if you can find a better way to word it ?? Does "architect" work, should I just use "led" (since reliable sources use that word) and wait to see if someone explains the objection, or can you think of another way to deal with and phrase the entire passage? Thanks! Sandy 13:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I accidently mispelt "grammar" in my edit summary, Sandy! So I'm not the best one for that, either. As far as I knew, Chavez unquestionably led the coup. I hope so, because I've used it enough times as a sneaky come-back to Chavez watchers who brag about his commitment to constitutional government! Led should be fine, shouldn't it? --Zleitzen 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would but he targets me. He had done damage to me in the past. His remarks about me recently have been minor but still he singles me out. I'll admit that I am intimidated. KarenAnn 14:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know everyone is engrossed in the first two paragraphs of Fidel Castro. But there are only two things that interest me about the subject of Fidel Castro now. One is the charisma factor, which is ignored. The second is Raul, his brother -- another topic that is ignored. Although he has been along for the entire ride and is the designated successor, Raul is mentioned only once. KarenAnn 23:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there are a few omissions in the article. Although there is a cult-of-personality reference, which is arguable and has a certain merit - Castro retains most of his power through a kind of "cult of charisma". You can see this from his speeches and public displays, he's a performer. Regardless of what one thinks about his policies even if they may seem dreadful at times, the man oozes charisma more than any leader in modern times. I see Castro as less of a Communist than a mafia don, he is motivated by survival of himself and his family at any cost - and in his mind his family happens to be the people of Cuba.--Zleitzen 00:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all seems to be getting increasingly out of control. The Talk page is almost 80 kilobytes long, most of it taken up with arguments about the Talk page itself and not constructive discussion of the Fidel Castro article. (I hope BruceHallman is on vacation or something and hasn't decided that the page isn't worth the hassle.) To me it seems impossible to work on the article without a functioning Talk page. What to do? KarenAnn 11:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the talk page is not a primary issue. I've requested that Teemu end his campaign to restructure the page by adding his polls to each section. If he does it one more time I'll implement this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää, and go to an administrator to ask for further assistance. The request for comment (which is not yet acitvated) is headed thus;

Teemu Ruskeepää

User:Teemu Ruskeepää Has been continually attempting to restructure the talk page of Fidel Castro, and is now adding a lengthy poll to the foot of each talk discussion, despite many comments that he does not have consensus. Furthermore, responses to other users have become increasingly uncivil.

The administrator should also add another warning to his page effectively saying that he will be blocked from editing on the next attempt to obstruct the talk page. Regarding the personal comments, the action is much the same - increased warnings that lead to a block unless followed. I've given him a first warning after his comment to Mensch. --Zleitzen 11:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best action to take. Teemu doesn't listen and for some reason takes the whole thing extremely personally. I think after the end of his campaign or the results of Request for Comment procedure we can delete all the polls which haven't generated any comments.

As soon as that's resolved we can get to work on the article. I think you're right about the peer review attracting politcial crackpots, so maybe it's better to rework the article and use the Thatcher and Blair as a sort of template for reference. After that we could try to list the article as a Featured article candidate, so we can respond to the politcally driven editors better.

Length doesn't seem to be a problem, the Thatcher article is very long as well and there are a lot of things to be said about Castro.

Oh and Zleitzen, thanks for defending my "honor". ;) mensch • t 12:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a note on his talk page. I take it that he is reformating the discussion page so that items of similar content are grouped together rather than in the traditional chronological manner?--MONGO 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was Teemu's general idea I believe, but there were other factors dreamt up which confused everyone. Including the refusal to allow the page to be archived. The whole lot is a bit of a mess now, yet repeated requests that Teemu let the issue drop have been met with increased resistance. Thanks for dropping a note on the page. Good work.--Zleitzen 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the user engage in what I feel is incivility in another talk page (the Peru article) Talk:Peru#Economy. He is not a bad editor in the sense that he adds bad content but he seems to want to ignore the WP:NOT a soapbox rule in talk pages which comes with the risks of turning talk pages into partisan political forums, which I don't want. From the Cuba talk page I can see that the user is engaging in personal attacks....You're actually a neurotic, passive-aggressive resistant of other people opinions[8] We don't need this nonsense on talk pages.

P.S. Zleitzen, I don't mean to impose but from seeing your knowledge of Cuban issues I thought it would be appropriate to ask you to see the Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada article. I added alot of stuff to it a while ago and was meaning to ask you to see it a while ago but forgot. Anyway, considering his importance in the Cuban political system and the fact that (aside from Raul Castro) he is a possible successor to Fidel, I thought his article could really use an expansion.--Jersey Devil 00:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the Alarcón page on my to do list, Jersey Devil, thanks for bringing that up. As for Teemu, if you see further up this page there is a message from KarenAnn about his behaviour - "he targets me... I'll admit that I am intimidated", when KarenAnn has done nothing to warrant any bad feeling at all. That's the problem, such activity discourages editors and lowers the whole tone of the place. I have an rfc in waiting if such antics continue. Maybe that will stimulate Teemu to get the message to change his manner.--Zleitzen 08:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a lot of these Cuba pages on my watchlist but without much time to edit significantly. --TJive 08:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like both of those articles you suggest, Blair and Thatcher, are not sourced according to the criteria necessary now. I don't know how they got away with it.

And although Blair and Thatcher may seem as controversial in your country as Castro, that certainly is not the case in mine. Blair and Thatcher cause nary a ripple here and never have. Not so with Fidel Castro. I wager that the persons you are warring with today are from mine. So citations are absolutely necessary, according to the mensch method -- which in the articles I write in real life is the criteria anyway.

That's the way to go, in my opinion. Source everything. (I may be tipsy - Saturday night, so I hope this makes sense.) KarenAnn 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit overwrote yours. Apologies. --TJive 00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so! No problem. We seem to have the same watchlist. --Zleitzen 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...you might be interested in. Partido Ortodoxo, definately needs work, major party before the revolution and as the article states Castro was previously affiliated with it. Eduardo Chibás, another important figure in the anti-Batista movement. There also seems to be no page for the Partido Auténtico which was another major party in the opposition to Batista in the pre-Castroite era.--Jersey Devil 02:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he's back on the Castro talk page, making the same "Should this and that be moved under discussion tree" sections as he did before. And still being somewhat rude against people opposing him ("You don't know what you are talking about, and you are just picking sides.") So what's the best action to take? Alerting an admin or listing Teemu for a RfC or both? mensch • t 07:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both. I've alerted the two admins that have placed warnings on his page, and put a message on the Admin noticeboard. I'll knock up the rfc as well, though I have a feeling that Teemu will only rise to this challenge!--Zleitzen 09:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment on your RfC, but please fix the links first (so it's not "example user"), and announce it on the Fidel Castro talk page.

(You might need to use mediation in any case... I doubt an RfC will do it for you here.) SB Johnny 10:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am working on the diffs etc.--Zleitzen 10:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I co-signed the RfC, hope I did it the right way! mensch • t 10:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember when you list an RFC to add the date and time by writing ~~~~~ at the end. I have done so for the RFC you already listed. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, was in a bit of a flurry and became bamboozled by the process.--Zleitzen 11:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thanks Zleitzen, I'm looking forward with interest to see how this whole area shapes up over time. Good luck with your efforts, I think your aims with regard to Cuba will need a great deal of patience.

Per instructions at top. Don't know how much difference that makes. Maybe you could sign it. KarenAnn 13:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the date, KarenAnn.--Zleitzen 13:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at it please. Your help would be much appreciated.

I'm not sure what you are asking. (I'd have to bestir myself to look too, as I am burned out due to Talk page stuff.) But certainly there are sufficient sources that US relations with Cuba have been horrible since at least 1898, Roosevelt making them worse by thinking he was helping, etc. and then with Batista colluding with the US -- by 1959 all a politician had to be was anti-American to be a hero. And then, of course, the US has been rotten to Cuba ever since.

So do you want a blow-by-blow account of US bungling and awfulness? Because I can surely document that sort of thing. Mensch-type footnotes are work but good and necessary. What are you trying to get at through the article? What is your interest here? KarenAnn 23:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I put in a reference section in your Cuba-United States relations article so your footnotes would show up. KarenAnn 23:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking about footnotes and referencing technical matters, KarenAnn as I don't know how to do it and I'm usless with computers. I only know how to do external links references. I wrote the whole article as it is now some time ago, based largely on what I knew - combining a few pieces of precise info taken from internet sources - with the exeption of the recent relations area which I've left to others to compile.--Zleitzen 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just changed one of your footnotes and I was in the middle of changing the other. I'm not good with computers either. Mensch taught me how to do it -- it's not hard -- just a matter of knowing what to do. KarenAnn 23:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you can guarantee there is no Teemu lurking about (poor guy), I would like to help you -- Fidel Castro is going to be hopeless for quite a while, I think. Mensch and I just lucked out during a quiet period -- before all hell broke loose. I've only discovered Wikipedia in the last few months, so I was unprepared for what subsequently happened. I'm better at editing than at coming up with the articles from scratch -- unless it's Johnny Mercer! KarenAnn 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thanks for the invitation, but I am afraid I am not an expert in the Venezuelan medical system, I did add to the article a bit here or there from what I have read and can verify but on traditional newspapers. I may also find a picture of a Barrio Adentro I from the outside and get a friend to release it in a free-friendly copyright.Flanker 04:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind. But there is a sign at the top saying a uniform system of citation should be used. KarenAnn 14:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work KarenAnn - it would also be nice to see that tag removed eventually - it refers to an experiment in citations by User:Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, and some issue between different formats that he was involved in. Unfortunately he was banned from the page and I can't unravel the problem myself as I'm an idiot on these matters. I tried to format them in the tradional style but it messed up a template somewhere. Any help is gratefully appreciated.--Zleitzen 15:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other links buried in there under some other guise -- like seeming to be an internal link? Is any link a possible external link? KarenAnn 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Cuba page there is this reference as an explanation for the citing method: User:CitationTool/Hybrid referencing. Looking at the page again, there are only a few actual references outside of the ones to a Wikipedia link. I think they will transfer over to mensch's method easily. So I will go ahead and do it, as I don't understand a word of the explanation of Hybrid referencing. KarenAnn 16:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its been taken care of. If anything else comes up, contact me. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 02:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has it?

Didn't have time to look through all your archive, but is discussion about the Cuba article, what inflated your talk page?

Do you have time to help with possible vanity spammers?

If you do, could you take a look at Mariano Ristori Morakis..... It was tagged but whoever edited after that removed the tags without addressing the problem. I only noticed because I looked at the history after *I* tagged it *again*.

I found it while following a chain that started at Cristian Mac Entyre, which I also had to tag. One or both of these guys appear to be using Wikipedia to plug their artwork, and they are editing a number of pages related to their work in support of this. It would not be such a big deal, except they don't appear to be "notable" WP:BIO.

Will you help by taking a look at either of these articles? I'm only one man (or Antelope)....  ;) --Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]